Where’s the heat? Warming of Pacific Ocean fastest seen in 10,000 years

Skeptics have made much of the so called 15 year “pause” in warming for land surface temperatures, while conveniently overlooking the warming oceans.

A study just released this week in Science indicates the Pacific Ocean may be warming at a rate faster than it has in the last 10,0000 years [pay wall]:

Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.

This study was also reported in the LA Times, where some (genuine) climate scientists expressed scepticism about the rate of warming. Still it is very clear the oceans have been acting as a “buffer” in absorbing additional heat. However we can’t bank on the oceans performing this role in future centuries:

“This is much faster than anything we’ve seen in the long term,” said Yair Rosenthal, a professor of earth sciences at Rutgers University and lead author of the study.

The timing could be fortuitous, because we may be pumping the atmosphere full of carbon after a naturally-occurring cooldown, just when the oceans are most prepared to absorb the heat, Rosenthal said.

“There may be some hope, “ he said, “because maybe the ocean will be able to store more heat than we were estimating before.”

It could also spell trouble. While temperatures in the atmosphere go up and down pretty quickly, seawater can absorb a lot of heat before its temperature rises. So even if carbon emissions are reduced, it could take years or even centuries for the ocean to respond, a lag that could have consequences far into the future.

[Image source: Scientific American]


218 thoughts on “Where’s the heat? Warming of Pacific Ocean fastest seen in 10,000 years

  1. Bill Jamison says:

    At the current rate of warming which is reported as 0.18°C over the last 60 years – which matches the Levitus paper btw – it will take about 180 years for the oceans to reach the temperature last seen during the Medieval Warm period (more commonly referred to as the Medieval Climate Optimum) and possibly 1,600 years to reach the levels of the Holocene Thermal Maximum about 8,000 years ago.

    “…over the last 60 years, water column temperatures, averaged from the surface to 2,200 feet, increased 0.18 degrees C, or .32 degrees F. That might seem small in the scheme of things, but it’s a rate of warming 15 times faster than at any period in the last 10,000 years, said Linsley.”

    Mike Mann has some issues with their conclusions and core top dating.


    • john byatt says:

      only in that area?

    • Rodger the Dodger says:

      Bill, why would anyone want to take notice of some American dickhead who can’t even do simple 5th grader math.

      Watch how it’s done.

      0.18C / 60 = 0.003 C per year.
      2.1C / 0.003 = 700 years.
      2.1C comes from here

      NOT 1,600 years


      • Bill Jamison says:

        Now trying do the math with 0.25C in 200 years and see what you get rodger. Can you do the math?

        • john byatt says:

          “How did these species survive 8,000 years ago when the ocean so 2.1C warmer?”

          “and possibly 1,600 years to reach the levels of the Holocene Thermal Maximum about 8,000 years ago.”

          0.18C / 60 = 0.003 C per year. ( that is the current rate )
          2.1C / 0.003 = 700 years.

          certainly intriguing

        • Rodger the Dodger says:

          “over the last 60 years, water column temperatures, averaged from the surface to 2,200 feet, increased 0.18 degrees C”

          This is what you quoted, now you are just making [stuff] up because you can’t do math.

          Damn you are a mess. [edit]

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Like I said it’s not my fault if you don’t read all the information available rodger. That quote is only about the last 60 years which is the “15 times faster than at any period in the last 10,000 years”. The warming started at the end of the LIA:

          “Rosenthal found that after a period of warming following the end of the last ice age, the Pacific steadily cooled by 2.1 °C over the next 9000 years. Temperatures then shot up at an unprecedented rate: increasing by 0.25 °C in 200 years.”

          Now do the math and see if you come up with “possibly 1,600 years to reach the levels of the Holocene Thermal Maximum about 8,000 years ago”. Almost 1/3 of the warming was from about 1800 to 1940 well before the rapid increase in GHGs.


          Try not to be so uninformed rodger

        • Rodger the Dodger says:

          Ever heard of acceleration. You use the most recent trajectory for a projection.

          [edit – Rodger, I will ask you to mind some of the language thanks]

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Ah you’re mad again because I was able to provide a quote to back up my claim. In fact if you look at my first post on this subject I too said 700 years until I read that the total warming was 0.25C in 200 years.

          You sure get angry a lot rodger. Are you an unhappy person? Or do you just play one on the Internet?

        • john byatt says:

          you are a mental case jamison

          Bill “At the current rate of warming which is reported as 0.18°C over the last 60 years – which matches the Levitus paper btw – it will take about 180 years for the oceans to reach the temperature last seen during the Medieval Warm period (more commonly referred to as the Medieval Climate Optimum) and possibly 1,600 years to reach the levels of the Holocene Thermal Maximum about 8,000 years ago.

          “at the current rate ……………………………………….and possibly 1600 years to reach the Holocene thermal max

          you are insane

  2. john byatt says:

    yes when you consider speed of heating,SLR acceleration and Ocean acidification the outlook is not too good,

    maybe we should listen to the IPCC

    have read before about the problems with core top datings.

    it is the speed, fifteen times faster that is the problem yet some morons want to wait 180 years to see what happens ?

    • Bill Jamison says:

      Why is the speed the problem instead of total OHC?

      • john byatt says:

        it is very important, we are already seeing the results along our own coast,

        very worried about Irukandji_moving down into the more populated beach areas


        • john byatt says:

          even in tasmania


          This species is the largest sea urchin in Tasmania and it is a marine pest of major concern because it causes devastating environmental threats to biodiversity, and economic and social values. It aggressively overgrazes seaweed and all other marine organisms. It also causes very significant impacts to major fisheries in the State. Negative relationships have been shown between this species and the abalone, rock lobster and some wild finfish industries. For example, the density of commercially fished abalone (Haliotis rubra) and rock lobster (Jasus edwardsii) is significantly lower on sea urchin barrens (Johnson et al. 2005). In addition, abalone are found to increase their activity when the sea urchin is present and they move into cryptic habitats. Moreover, the relative abundance and biomass of large fishes (> 30cm), particularly the exploited wrasses (i.e. Notolabrus spp.) and banded morwong (i.e. Cheilodactylus spectabilis spp.), have been shown to decrease in areas where there is a relative abundance of the sea urchin (Stuart-Smith et al. 2008).

          The range extension for the sea urchin may be linked with climate change where sea water warming is increasing in the strength (resulting in more eddies and greater current velocity) of the EAC (Ling 2008). Changes in these currents are thought to be creating favourable environmental conditions that are assisting the translocation of the larvae from NSW further south. In addition, this sea urchin spawns in winter in waters that are warmer than 12 degrees Celsius. Over the past five years the waters around eastern Tasmania have warmed (from a traditionally winter minimum of approximately 11 degrees Celsius) and during some winters the water temperature has been warm enough for this species to spawn (Ling et al. 2008). These years have resulted in the sea urchin successfully propagating larvae and Tasmania consequently now supports a reproductive population. Of great concern here is that the 12 degrees Celsius threshold for larval development is anticipated to become more frequent during the major spawning period as the global climate changes. Continued coastal warming is also anticipated to reduce larval development time which may in turn enhance larval survival and increase the likelihood of self-recruitment of this species in Tasmania due to decreased exposure to potentially hazardous planktonic conditions.

          need any more?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          How did these species survive 8,000 years ago when the ocean so 2.1C warmer?

        • john byatt says:

          there were not many people swimming at the sunshine or gold coast 8000 years ago either

          how dumb are you?

        • Rodger the Dodger says:

          Google it

      • Rodger the Dodger says:

        Why are you such an obsessive dumb climate zombie troll who can’t even do simple math would be a better question?

  3. john byatt says:

    suck shit


    now comes the high court challenge and re election of WA senate


    • Bill Jamison says:

      Nice of Tamino to admit that there has been no statistically significant warming in Australia for the last 25 years. If that’s the case then how are these fires due to warming and how are they a sign of things to come?

      • astrostevo says:

        .. And how about the angry summer we’ve just experienced breaking all those one hundred and twenty three records in just ninety days? Co-incidence? I don’t think so!

      • Bernard J. says:

        Tamino didn’t say that. If you think he did go over to his thread and post there repeating your comment.

        I know that you’ll be too gutless to do so, because Tamino will rip your a second arse-hole for trying to put those words into his mouth.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Tamino’s own words about the last 25 years: “The trend line just barely escaped negative slope, and is nowhere near statistically significant. Twenty five years with no statistically significant warming!”

          Of course then he goes on to look at the longer term trend to prove that Australia has warmed in the last 100 years. I think we all knew that. But the amount of warming is regional and varies greatly depending on what part of Australia you look at.

        • john byatt says:

          no not just the longer term but also this year, shows acceleration over the past 25 years

        • Bernard J. says:

          Bill Jamison.

          I note that you did not have the courage to post on Tamino’s thread and repeat your claim, or confirm your putting of words into his mouth. I’ll tuck that little show of cowardice away for future reference.

          Of course you could always decide to embarrass me and go over there and belatedly post to check your interpretation of Tamino’s work. Before you do though remember that he said this:

          When you look at all the data, including this year (although only 9 months old), it is abundantly clear that Australia has gotten hotter, and that you have to cherry-pick your time span to make it look like it’s not a problem. But then, cherry-picking time spans to make it look like it’s not a problem is what global warming deniers do. A lot.

        • Bernard J. says:

          Further to your cherry picking Bill Jamison, it’s probably worth pointing out that you are also ignoring the influence that focussing only on a regional record has on the detection of a warming signal. I’d be interested to find out if you know:

          1) how to quantify the decrease in the signal to noise ratio that occures relative the the global value, and

          2) how to determine the average length of time required to identify in the Australian record a warming signal with, say, 95% statistical confidence.

          Brownie points if you can show your working.

      • Rodger the Dodger says:


      • Debunker says:

        What a load of crap Bill! That is not what Tamino said. He is quite clear on that. The statement is what he ASSUMES Abbott based his claims on. You, who are constantly claiming that other people have been lying, have clearly been caught in a lie yourself.

        As Roger has said, you only need to scroll down and read the entire post to get the full import of what Tamino said, and it is the exact opposite of what you claim. No wonder you climate deniers get such a reputation when you are constantly misrepresenting what other people have said.

        I have been following the whole global warming “debate” (if indeed there is anything to debate), for the past 15 years, and the thing that has convinced me more than anything else that the science community is correct, is the constant misrepresentation of facts, quoting out of context, and general bullshit and misdirection that the anti GW crowd employs. You, for all your phony high falutin moralising, are as bad as the rest. That comment was just a disgrace, and you should be ashamed of yourself. I am not holding my breath though, you people have no sense of shame, and like the phony religious evangelists, think that lying for a “good cause” is totally acceptable.

      • Nick says:

        Nice of you to stop reading at the first graph, Bill….tired? Need a nap?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I read all of it Nick. I understand what Tamino is saying. He’d rather look at the whole period of record instead of just the last 25 years. Of course. But the charts I posted from the site you linked clearly show temperature and rainfall trends for the last 40 years and they aren’t that dramatic when looking at the entire country. For some specific regions they are dramatic. In some areas rainfall has increased just as dramatically as it has decreased in other areas yet some of you choose to focus solely on the areas where it has decreased and then point the usual finger at climate change.

        • Nick says:

          What a confused ramble, Bill.

          The last 25 years is cited in the context of a possible explanation for Abbott’s delusion ‘climate change is crap’, and his dismissal of Figueres comments. So Tamino reminds you that over the century the reality is undisputable: climate has ‘changed’, it is warmer, and that influence/input into fire potential is really not controversial.

          The reason why we are interested in the temperature trends recently is because we are living now, and into the future, which physics tells us will be warmer again. We have a growing society to feed. Heat and frying trends will reduce productivity per hectare over the long term,even while year to year variation is always considerable.

          The fact that parts of Australia are wetter over the past 50 years plus is not axiomatically positive: more monsoonal rain in the Kimberley is pretty much useless in a very hot non-agricultural dry tropical zone so remote from markets. It just makes communications more difficult, and the cattle harder to gather. In the places that count agriculturally with a more tractable climate [relatively], a drying, heating trend is not a positive for agriculture.

          Past projections for regional climate change in Australia have identified a wetter trend for the north, and a drier one for the SW and SE/E…it’s pretty much following the expected path at the moment. It seems you were unaware of this.

        • Nick says:

          “frying’ > drying.

    • J Giddeon says:

      “Tony Abbot got elected saying, among other things, that global warming science was a bunch of crap.”

      Its probably superfluous to say it but the evidence that he said that is ‘equivocable’.

      There is no recording of what he said and it may well be that he said that the argument that the science was settled was crap. A subtle but important difference.

      • Nick says:

        Here, zombie: It’s in the ‘government gazette’

        ” The argument is absolute crap. However the politics is tough for us. Eighty percent of people believe climate change is a real and present danger” is the comment as written down by Craig Wilson, editor of the ‘Pyrenees Advocate’

        • J Giddeon says:

          zombie? Do you guys ever post without the name-calling. I feel like its recess in year 6.

          I’m well aware of the Oz article.

          “TONY ABBOTT: And I think what you’ll find, if you go back to the comments, is that it was the so called settled science of climate change, that I thought was to be described in language that I wouldn’t use on a family program.”


        • Nick says:

          You present ‘undead’ fake points of contention from Bolt, Gids. What to say to folks like you who can’t find the bums with their own hands? Hmmm. Is it at all interesting whether he thinks ‘unsettled’ or ‘crap’. Forget his pandering, watch the actions.

          “The argument is absolute crap”…that the argument is settled is absolute crap / climate science’s argument is absolute crap / climate science is absolute crap….interesting distinction [sarc]. “The argument”, whether it’s about the science being settled sufficiently for action, or just intellectually he thinks it’s unsettled? It’s irrelevant.

          From Abbott’s perspective as an aspiring policy maker? It’s all the same. He thinks climate science’s prescription for decarbonisation is very difficult, he has a lot of industry money riding on him to delay and divert while we lock in more coal development, and he’d prefer to believe CC is crap in order to facilitate all that..

          We know the people who members of this mob prefer to consult on climate science are rejectionists and liars like Plimer and Carter. We know the people they should interact with on climate science from BOM, the CSIRO and various university faculties. We know the government avoids as much as feasible these centres of knowledge….certainly they have been at pains to eliminate the profile of climate matters and rob it of a direct office connection to the executive.

          We know that Abbott sees the political problem, and it is obvious he seeks to minimise or dismiss climate change as a present issue [because he has done just that] as part of his political strategy. The other part being to downplay foreign actions, and exaggerate the vulnerability of the Australian economy.

        • J Giddeon says:

          “You present ‘undead’ fake points of contention from Bolt, Gids. ”

          It was actually a transcript from the 7:30 report. This notion that you can prove me wrong by just asserting that the data came from Bolt is becoming a little tired.
          Its lazy, untrue and in this case just plain bonkers.

          But you so desperately want to believe that Abbott rejects the science that any contrary data just has to be rejected/ignored out of hand The reason for the rejection is only of secondary concern. Is that the way research works for you?

        • Nick says:

          Oh Gawd,,,Gids, I was describing your general past behavior in reflexively recycling Bolt. I was thinking about your past few offerings.

          And Giddeot, the evidence for Abbott’s rejection of the science on anything but reluctant political reality terms is obvious. “The argument is crap. However the politics is tough for us”

          For God’s sake. Are these all just words? Is it that mysterious? Did he dismantle the CC just because he wanted to save the money? ROFLAO. They fell over themselves to squash it, priority number one!! “Take that, pesky science!!” “Never threaten our IPA-directed destiny again!!”

          I actually ‘desperately’ want to believe that Abbott accepts the science. I can find no evidence that he does. He will say what he thinks you want to hear, do you understand what that is? It’s ‘pandering’. It’s not as though he is the only polly to do that.

      • Rodger the Dodger says:

        Anything you say is superfluous.

        • J Giddeon says:

          so very eloquent

        • J Giddeon says:

          Do posts here get edited after the fact. I feel sure Rodge’s post said more than it currently says. It was truly distasteful and probably required an edit but normally there would be some notation that the edit had occurred.

        • john byatt says:

          you are delusional giddeot

        • Rodger the Dodger says:

          Don’t like what people post here, THEN DON”T COME HERE. (Hint. You are a troll, and I was trying to get rid of you. I know, a difficult concept for a troll to understand)

        • john byatt says:

          . It was truly distasteful

          well you think that keeping less than 20% of the world living comfortably proves that their is no problems with the world’s resources, in other words you are a selfish distasteful person [edit]

        • Rodger the Dodger says:

          Gidiot, YOU ARE TRULY DISTASTEFUL. You hate it that people who want to talk about climate change are here, so you obsessively troll. You post abhorrently awful and objectionable material trying to get us to read your extremist right wing skinhead bullshit. You are a clueless climate zombie, where the facts are fearful. You call us ‘warmists’ and are not interested in what we say. You childishly drivel aimlessly about rubbish that no one here is interested in. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU!!!

        • J Giddeon says:

          “well you think that keeping less than 20% of the world living comfortably proves that their is no problems with the world’s resources”

          When/where did I say anything approaching that?

        • J Giddeon says:

          ” and I was trying to get rid of you. ”

          Dodgy basically confirms it. Oh dear, altering posts to protect the guilty.

          How often does that happen?

  4. john byatt says:

    good question, if about half the SLR is due to OHC and parts of the ocean are now heating fifteen times times faster than any time over the holocene, what will that mean for SLR projections

  5. Rodger the Dodger says:

    There is an infestation of trolls on this site.

    Ever wanted to know what makes a troll tick?


  6. Jp says:

    Bill Jamison says,

    “Nice of Tamino to admit that there has been no statistically significant warming in Australia for the last 25 years.”

    What Tamino says,

    “Gee. When you look at all the data, including this year (although only 9 months old), it is abundantly clear that Australia has gotten hotter, and that you have to cherry-pick your time span to make it look like it’s not a problem. But then, cherry-picking time spans to make it look like it’s not a problem is what global warming deniers do. A lot.”

    The denier retard strikes again.

    • Bill Jamison says:

      Yes when you look at ALL of the data meaning not just the last 25 years. I think we all know that the earth and Australia have warmed over the last 100 years. Not many people deny that fact.

      • john byatt says:

        you still did not get it, adding in the YTD for 2013 the warming acceleration is obvious over the last 25 years, we have had our warmest day, warmest week, warmest month, warmest twelve months

        natural variability ?

        yet you claim to accept that greenhouse gases will heat the planet, well until god or someone brings it back self regulation

      • Nick says:

        Though one might ask ‘why bother?’, at least Bill knows he’s parodying himself most of the time.

      • Steve says:

        Although I don’t agree with many of the things you say on this site, I do agree that there is a lot too much name calling. Referring to someone as a retard is both insulting to the person being referred to, and also to the people like me who are not mentally normal.
        There is a significant minority of people who do deny that the Earth and Australia have warmed over the last 100 years, and many who suggest that the Earth is cooling.
        People have a wide range of opinions and there are even people who deny that the Earth is Spherical.

        • Steve says:

          I apologise for confusing you with someone else. It was J Giddeon who objected to the name calling.

        • J Giddeon says:


          I wasn’t complaining about the name-calling….what would be the point.

          I I just point out how juvenile it is and mock it because I find that mocking can cause such people to alter their behavior.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Steve I’ve objected to it in the past but it doesn’t any good. The posters that engage in the behavior simply justify their behavior by claiming it’s deserved. They flaunt the blog rules when it’s convenient and then cry foul when some posts something they disagree with. Obviously it’s not all posters. Some are very reasonable and can engage in debate without getting personal or mean while others clearly can’t.

          Anyway I understand your objection to it but unfortunately I doubt it will change.

        • john byatt says:


          this is pure troll behaviour and will cause people to respond

          Bill Jamison says:
          November 2, 2013 at 4:57 am
          At the current rate of warming which is reported as 0.18°C over the last 60 years – which matches the Levitus paper btw – it will take about 180 years for the oceans to reach the temperature last seen during the Medieval Warm period (more commonly referred to as the Medieval Climate Optimum) and possibly 1,600 years to reach the levels of the Holocene Thermal Maximum about 8,000 years ago.

          “…over the last 60 years, water column temperatures, averaged from the surface to 2,200 feet, increased 0.18 degrees C, or .32 degrees F. That might seem small in the scheme of things, but it’s a rate of warming 15 times faster than at any period in the last 10,000 years, said Linsley.”

          Mike Mann has some issues with their conclusions and core top dating.

          and then this later

          Bill Jamison says:
          November 3, 2013 at 4:51 am
          Ah you’re mad again because I was able to provide a quote to back up my claim. In fact if you look at my first post on this subject I too said 700 years until I read that the total warming was 0.25C in 200 years.

          You sure get angry a lot rodger. Are you an unhappy person? Or do you just play one on the Internet?

          he has done exactly the same going from denying that the arctic ocean was fully within the arctic circle to claiming that he said the opposite

          he has no argument to make on any issue so plays the troll

          and people will rightly call him names and insult him

  7. BBD says:

    Bill Jamison

    What confuses me is the “sceptic” position on the MCA (MCO is obsolete). Many seem determined to argue – directly in the face of the evidence, which is now considerable – that there was a global, synchronous warm event matching or even exceeding late C20th global average temperatures.

    The excitement about Rosenthal et al. apparently derives from the mistaken belief that it supports this position. But it does not. The paper does not quantify global OHC but only intermediate waters (500m – 1000m) and only in two locations and explicitly states that the land surface temperature changes were small relative to the OHC change:

    Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.

    But back to the core of my confusion. Let us suppose that there really was a global, synchronous hot MCA. That would be strong evidence for a relatively high Holocene climate sensitivity to radiative perturbation. Something “sceptics” invariably deny.

    As I see it, “sceptics” should be shoulder-to-shoulder with Mann in their focus on the potential issues with Rosenthal et al. Wouldn’t you agree?

    • john byatt says:


    • Bill Jamison says:

      Well recent posts on RC and SkS discussing the 0.09C warming of the ocean claim that it’s significant yet it pales in comparison to the warming documented in Rosenthal et al.

      The MCO is thought to have lasted only about 300 years yet the oceans were 0.65C than today. What caused that much warming in a relatively short time? We’re told the current warming is due solely to increased manmade GHGs yet the ocean apparently warmed naturally over a relatively short period of time. CO2 wasn’t high yet the oceans warmed naturally. Amazing.

      • BBD says:

        Bill Jamison

        If – and it remains to be seen – R13 is essentially correct, the problem remains. The early Holocene warmth (particularly in the NH) was the consequence of precessional forcing. Radiative perturbation of the climate system.

        Some combination of solar variability and volcanism appears to have triggered the discontinuous, regional and asynchronous warm events loosely described as the MCA. Anomalies plural would capture it better. Radiative perturbation of the climate system.

        A known, quantified forcing of the present climate system by GHGs provides the paper’s headline finding: the intermediate waters of the Pacific Ocean are absorbing heat 15 times faster over the past 60 years than in the past 10ka. Radiative perturbation of the climate system.

        In essence, this paper is strong evidence that the Holocene climate is relatively sensitive to radiative perturbation. This is – as I have just said – something rejected by “sceptics”.

        So why are they enthusiastic about R13? It is confusing and you haven’t dispelled the confusion.

      • BBD says:

        And Bill, can we please not forget what I actually wrote about what R13 actually says:

        The excitement about Rosenthal et al. apparently derives from the mistaken belief that it supports this position. But it does not. The paper does not quantify global OHC but only that of intermediate waters (500m – 1000m) and only in two locations. Further, it explicitly states that the land surface temperature changes were small relative to the OHC change:

        Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.

        Your response above somehow ignores this.

      • john byatt says:

        Bozo I was on here last night when you chucked a hissy fit and started posting like a mad person, i could tell that you were in a rage due to the typos,


        we knew that your nonsense must have been due to lousy maths, lousy logic or both.

        your contradictions are classic denier,

        you ignore the current ocean warming rate over the last sixty years to make a nonsense mathturbation that the current rate is only 0.25C per 200 years.

        then in almost the next comment a complete reversal and now want to ignore the long term trend (200 years) to claim that austalia has not warmed over the past 25 years.

        my comments went into mod due change of email address

      • BBD says:

        Well recent posts on RC and SkS discussing the 0.09C warming of the ocean claim that it’s significant yet it pales in comparison to the warming documented in Rosenthal et al.

        I really should have started by pointing out that you have confused OHC estimates for intermediate waters in the tropical IndoPacific with global OHC for the entire 0 – 2000m layer (Levitus et al. 2012).

        This rather serious apples-with-oranges error invalidates your argument completely.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          There’s a reason they picked those waters for their study and they make conclusions about global temperature and OHC from their results.

          Do you really think that only THAT water warmed that much and somehow the rest of the globe was immune to whatever forcing caused the warming?

        • BBD says:

          I’m still confused. Here you are, a contrarian, arguing for a result that demonstrates moderately high Holocene climate sensitivity to radiative perturbation.

          Please explain to me how this sits with your denial that increasing RF from CO2 will not cause significant warming over the course of this century and well beyond.

        • Rodger the Dodger says:

          BBD, stop using actual science and logic on Bill. You are using words that have more than one syllable. He is a retard, and anything he thinks is just plain retarded. He is just a dumb troll with OCD. His obsession is trolling websites that have anyone talking about climate change. It’s all black magic to him.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I love your obsession with me rodger but it’s really not healthy!

        • BBD says:

          Bill Jamison

          Why are you not answering my question? We need to resolve your confusion.

          How can contrarians such as yourself argue for an interpretation of Rosenthal et al. that demonstrates moderately high Holocene climate sensitivity to radiative perturbation?

          Please explain to me how this sits with your denial that increasing RF from CO2 will not cause significant warming over the course of this century and well beyond.

          You need to square this circle and I would appreciate a coherent attempt from you.

      • Nick says:

        Bill you are extrapolating. Look at Rosenthal et als sample area and depth band before inserting foot further.

        • john byatt says:

          500M to 1000M

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Nick are you aware of this: “These seas [where the Rosenthal study was done] receive water from the north and south Pacific, so their temperature should reflect the average across the entire Pacific.”

          So they are claiming the temperature reconstruction represents the entire Pacific. If it’s true then I can’t help but wonder why the Pacific would warm and not the Atlantic. What ever change in forcing warmed the Pacific would likely warm the Atlantic too, would it not?

          What I also find fascinating is how quickly the oceans cooled: “Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades.”

          That works out to a cooling of ~0.9°C in ~300 years. I think that works out to 4 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat every second. Yet the planet cooled ( by as much as 0.7C based on some reconstructions) during that time when the oceans were losing heat at such a rapid rate.

        • Nick says:

          Bill, this is a slice of water at depth. It does not tell you directly or in a linear fashion what upper ocean temperatures were.

          We have a lot of evidence about sea-levels over the past ten thousand years that do not find higher sea levels during the MCO, which raise a serious question about these claims re MCO OHC. Around Australia there is general agreement that SL fell gradually from a Holocene Optimum highstand of 1m to 1.5m above LIA until around 2000 years ago, fluctuated only a little then started a definite rise in the last few hundred years. Some papers argue for an even higher HO highstand. Where this ‘warmth’ at 500 to 900m down in a smallish area fits in here is a big question.

          There is other deep ocean proxy data that tells a different story.

          You shouldn’t extrapolate their findings with undue confidence at present.

          The planet cooling [as in the atmosphere?] while oceans gave up that heat? Welcome to the enhanced GHG effect of the industrial era.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Nick do you really want to try to assert that only this specific slice of water in this specific region warmed? Seems illogical to me particularly given the statements made by the authors. They specifically claim – as I quoted – that the location because the water comes from other areas: “We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters” and “These seas receive water from the north and south Pacific, so their temperature should reflect the average across the entire Pacific. “.

          In addition they refer to OHC: Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.

          Do you believe they used OHC when they were actually referring to only a “slice”? That water would warm only at certain depths and not above and below? If you want to make that claim then I feel you should provide some evidence because it goes against what the authors of this paper are claiming.

          Here’s the editor’s summary from Science:

          “Rosenthal et al. (p. 617) present a temperature record of western equatorial Pacific subsurface and intermediate water masses over the past 10,000 years that shows that heat content varied in step with both northern and southern high-latitude oceans. The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events, and they provide a long-term perspective for evaluating the role of ocean heat content in various warming scenarios for the future.”

          They wouldn’t be able to make claims about these events being global if their evidence showed the changes in temperature were isolated to a “slice” of ocean in a single location.

        • Debunker says:

          Meanwhile, whilst Bill fiddles, consulting his charts, graphs & columns of figures, Oz continues to burn.

          It’s just weather, climate has always varied, Oz has always been a land of extremes, nothing unusual, just natural variability, move on – nothing to see here….. All the usual denialist crap (did I miss anything?),

          And yet….

          We have so far had 4 of the absolute hottest years globally in more than 100 years. 3 of them this century, and in Australia, THE hottest day ever, plus the hottest month ever, in the hottest year ever, plus now, (in the same year), we have the hottest two months ever. Yet Bill sees nothing unusual in this.

          The met office has even had to add some new colours to their charts to handle it.

          OK Bill, consult your charts and tell us when was the last time Australia had the coldest temperature ever, during the coldest month ever, (in the same year), and the coldest year ever? I, for one, would like to know.

        • john byatt says:

          yet that is exactly opposite to your claim re Arctic ocean,

          they could not make the claim without the reference papers,

          you are a troll and you are a complete fool with one wish only,.to post so much drivel that people will no longer come here

          begone troll

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Well debunker I guess you guys are screwed – at least that one part of Australia anyway.

        • Debunker says:

          Well Bill (even though you no longer appear to be with us), that last comment, and the smug way it was put, just exposes your faux concern trolling for what it was.

          Sadly, I have to agree with you on this one, even though it brings me no satisfaction to do so. I think large portions of the globe will be seriously affected, starting with Bangladesh, and including, of course large areas of Australia. And sooner than expected too, as many IPCC projections have been shown to be far too conservative. Ice loss in the Arctic for one.

          But the thing you contrarian posters fail to realise is, that while you imagine yourselves to be seriously skeptical people, you are just unpaid minions, (useful idiots if you like), being manipulated by big oil and the corporations that support it, (such as News Ltd). The amount of confusion and disinformation you unpaid idiots can disseminate is truly mind boggling, and in that, you have all been remarkably successful, as the average person does not have the scientific training and knowledge to see through your bullshit.

          Hence, I suspect, (even though you meant it in a sarcastic manner), that we are pretty much all screwed.


          This anti science denialism will have delayed action long enough to guarantee that something that could have been mildly mitigated against if done soon enough, will now be addressed far too late to do any good. I hope it gives you contrarians loads of satisfaction knowing that you helped bring it about.

        • john byatt says:

          you complete arsehole, whining about being called names while you dismiss peoples loss of homes, over 200 now in the past month as being screwed,

          and then the hide to claim concern for the poor, sad creature you are

        • BBD says:

          Bill Jamison

          Please see above.

          I am extremely surprised that you haven’t addressed my question, now repeated several times. It is, after all, absolutely central to your position.

          As such, profound confusion on your part is implied. Were I you, I would strive to correct this impression. I would address it directly, coherently and quickly.

          Why have you not done so?

  8. Jp says:

    Billy boy says,

    “I love your obsession with me rodger but it’s really not healthy!”

    You’re confusing obsession with irritation; the same irritation one would feel if a dog left a turd on their doormat. You and the Giddiot are the turds staining this blog. You don’t deserve any respect because like most fake skeptics, properly referred to as deniers, you’re all intellectually dishonest cockheads; you have nothing whatsoever to contribute to the discussion except prevarication, obfuscation, misreprentation etc. (the usual denier contributions). I’m only an occasional lurker, but the little bit that I’ve seen is enough to convince me that you’re just a clueless [edit]

    • Michael Marriott says:

      Guys, I’ve been unwell so reviewing the comments now. Please do be mindful of language. This is a public forum and I’m asking we tone down some of the frustration.

      I’ve also blocked those trolling.

      • BBD says:

        Michael, we crossed. If you are referring to BJ above, my apologies for attempting to continue our earlier conversation.

        I would have been interested in his response though. Or at least his attempt to frame one…


        • john byatt says:

          BBD he is driving people away from the blog, see Jp above

          he has no trouble in stating one thing and then some comments later claiming it was the opposite, see his claim above re his first post .

          inflame trolling, he needs help

        • BBD says:

          He reminds me of that other idiot, the one that got banned a few months ago.

          He’s in very big trouble with his interpretation of R13 though. As you can see.

      • Dr No says:

        MM: please do that.
        The level of discussion is so variable I am inclined to ignore most of it.
        The aim of the trolls who infest this site is to inflame – not to discuss.
        Please consider banning them as there is little point providing them with a source of childish amusement.
        It is not hard to identify them. Simply follow the trail and see how much time they spend here baiting the others with their faux expertise and selective quoting of statistics.
        The time has long gone when we should try and be accommodating. They are abusing the opportunity.

  9. Rodger the Dodger says:

    In keeping with the subject.

    “Recent warming of the Greenland Sea Deep Water is about ten times higher than warming rates estimated for the global ocean”


    • john byatt says:

      very comprehensive

      “The conspiratorial element of denial explains why contrarians often perceive themselves as heroic dissenters who — in their imagination — are following Galileo’s footsteps by opposing a mainstream scientific “elite” that imposes its views not on the basis of overwhelming evidence but for political reasons. Mainstream climate scientists are therefore frequently accused of “Lysenkoism,” after the Soviet scientist whose Lamarckian views of evolution were state dogma in the Soviet Union. Other contrarians appeal to Albert Einstein’s injunction “. . . to not stop questioning” to support their dissent from the fact that HIV causes AIDS (Duesberg, 1989).
      This conspiratorial element provides a breeding ground for the personal and professional attacks on scientists that seemingly inevitably accompany science denial”.

  10. john byatt says:

    President Obama Establishes a Task Force on Climate

    “We’re going to need to get prepared. And that’s why this plan will also protect critical sectors of our economy and prepare the United States for the impacts of climate change that we cannot avoid. States and cities across the country are already taking it upon themselves to get ready… And we’ll partner with communities seeking help to prepare for droughts and floods, reduce the risk of wildfires, protect the dunes and wetlands that pull double duty as green space and as natural storm barriers.” – President Barack Obama, 25 June 2013

  11. Debunker says:

    I was visiting Tamino’s blog yesterday, and picked up an interesting snippet from one of the posters. He points out that the right wing fan base is a prized demographic that is particularly singled out by purveyors of get rich schemes and other sundry snake oil salesmen. Much like trashy women’s scandal rags have a bunch of horoscope and phony medium ads on their back pages, and men’s mags have phone in sex ads plus “massage” adverts.

    The advertisers know their target market, and these people are gullible! Scroll down to mid article on the link to find out just how gullible!


    Funnily enough, these is the self same demographic that swallows the WUWT & Heartland bullshit.

    • Debunker says:

      Sorry, I meant: “this is the self same demographic”

      • john byatt says:

        was talking about people being duped some years ago on a denier blog, i said that they were more likely to be scammed than anyone else as con men know that they are an easy target ,

        one replied that we are all scammed at some time in our life as he was

        really !

  12. Steve says:

    I hope you are felling better now.
    I have been hesitant about commenting on the content of your post, especially as I can’t cite any peer reviewed papers to support my views.
    One of the things that has apparently characterized the Holocene inter glacial is the stability of sea levels. This seems to have been a major factor in allowing Humans to maintain a ‘civilization’ long enough to advance our knowledge of science and technology possibly well beyond any earlier Human level.
    If the oceans during the Medieval Climate Anomaly were as warm as Rosenthal,
    Braddock, Linsley and Delia suggest I would have expected the sea levels to be much higher than they are today. Although I can’t actually prove that the sea level were not very high at that time, historical evidence does not appear to support this idea. This objection is similar to one of the ones that Professor Mann made in the article linked to in the first comment on this post.
    Other studies suggest that Arctic temperatures now are higher than at any time in the Holocene and Arctic islands which have existed for thousands of years are disappearing quickly as their permafrost melts.
    I am aware that the main point of your post was the current speed of warming shown in the recent paper which is consistent with other studies and I accept that point, but I am more concerned about the actual temperatures of the world’s oceans during the Medieval Climate Anomaly which were suggested by the paper are correct.

    • john byatt says:

      same point has been made steve regarding SLR MWP, well spotted

      try google scholar ………….Sea level medieval warm period

    • Rodger the Dodger says:

      ” but I am more concerned about the actual temperatures of the world’s oceans during the Medieval Climate Anomaly”

      Why the hell would you be so concerned about the temperature of the ocean hundreds of years ago?

      The more concerning thing would be the temperature of the oceans now, which are at record levels. This has an impact on the climate of today, on how we are able to grow food today. It is now that we are all living, not hundreds of years in the past.

      You certainly have a strange obsession.

      • john byatt says:

        i think he is asking the full question rodger

        ” but I am more concerned about the actual temperatures of the world’s oceans during the Medieval Climate Anomaly which were suggested by the paper are correct.

        it is a good point because if the oceans were not as warm as claimed then it would be reflected in the SLR at the time which it appears to be see RC link above

        the paper is probably wrong on that score

      • Steve says:

        I do not have an obsession about the ocean temperatures during the Medieval Climate Anomaly. I did not say or suggest that I do.
        I was commenting on the current post.

        The reason for being more concerned about the actual temperatures than the past rate of rise is because the past temperatures and what happened during past periods is some indication of what will happen in the near future. My point was that the temperatures suggested by the paper are probably incorrect and therefore not a good indication of what will happen in the near future.
        As you say, the temperature of the oceans now are at record levels.

        • john byatt says:

          at RC

          The graph shows how sea level changed over the past 2000 years. There are four phases:

          Stable sea level from 200 BC until 1000 AD
          A 400-year rise by about 6 cm per century up to 1400 AD
          Another stable period from 1400 AD up to the late 19th C
          A rapid rise by about 20 cm since.

          so the paper cannot be used to claim sea temperatures were the same globally

        • Rodger the Dodger says:

          Good point.

          It’s just that many deniers will use the MCA as an excuse to discount the rapid rise in warming since the Industrial Revolution. I’ve seen it so many times now that I have a hair trigger whenever the MCA is mentioned.

        • john byatt says:

          and the graph correlates very well with MWP global temps being about equal to mid twentieth century.

          thank goodness,CS looks to be about 3DegC then and not what would be suspected from a warmer MWP than current

        • Nick says:

          IIRC in context of misleading claims over another paper made here [and elsewhere] months ago, Holocene Optimum warmth was a product of orbital forcing factors and mean that arctic /high lat summers were receiving more insolation/m2, but not winters. This is a different forcing distribution of the present GHG mediated forcing which is higher year round and global. So currently SSTs are rising in a different enough way spatially and in three dimensions,and deeper water HC is different.

          Rosenthal is being misrepresented by those who extrapolate a similar or same global pattern. That sample area’s water at 500m down is not a direct or accurate proxy for OHC vertical relationships now.

  13. Rodger the Dodger says:

    Anatomy of a newspaper beat-up. Another ‘An Ice Age Cometh’ moment that has been lighting up the interwebs.

    Here is the beatup in the tabloids.


    This has prompted one of the experts who was cited to cry foul.


    The Daily Express’s owner Richard Desmond makes Murdoch seem like a saint.

    • Nick says:

      …Approved into a world with soft coal prices from glutting…we will see this run with special labour agreements and gastarbeiter. Newman is also gutting environmental monitoring capability in Qld.

    • Nick says:

      The corporate dictatorship is consolidating its power as Mungo mentions. Our libertarian, individualist friends have a bit of soul searching to do, if they could find their own bums first. How have we come to allow these attacks on national sovereignty, and the power to legislate for your electorates in your environment? We haven’t. These negotiations are largely conducted secretly.

      Dogmatically opposed to science? Just sue. Everything is compensable for those with power, and you can write off the rest.

    • john byatt says:

      Abbott UN chief was “talking through her hat”

      Abbott ” climate change is crap”

      Hunt ” “the silliest report I’ve ever read”.

      what brilliant politicians we have

      • Nick says:

        The ‘hand wave’ is now the considered response of the modern era.

        • john byatt says:

          very interesting person

          November 4, 2013 at 11:43 am · Reply
          Totally O/T … Hugh Morgan (correctly IMHO) compares IPCC to Club of Rome:


          Paywalled – need Google search (the usual). That’s the advantage some older folks have, they have seen these scary campaigns before and recognise them for what they are.

        • Nick says:

          I don’t get it, JB. Why are they ‘interesting’? They’re just routine. “So-and-so is a greenie fool / has really lost it / they moderate me out ” While the rest is the delusional “blah-blah-plant food-CO2 drought-they adjusted the temperatures down” song cycle of the aggrieved incompetent, in response to Nova’s me-tooing Abbott’s strawman.

        • john byatt says:

          alter egos interest me nick

          May 24, 2013 at 12:12 pm · Reply
          It is the role of older generations to worry about the incoming youth … welcome to old fart status 🙂 Thankfully rock and roll was not the undoing of society.

          Despite my often dire writings and economist training, I remain at heart an optimist. I have great faith in the predominantly good will of my fellow earth dwellers and their inclination to use new technologies predominantly for positive change.

        • Debunker says:

          Well JB, that may be mildly interesting (for you), but I just spent 20 minutes of my life (which I will never get back), going through that boring old troll’s comments, and finding nothing remotely interesting at all.

          In future, could you post the comment you found interesting, along with your link, then we can make an informed decision as to whether we want to delve deeper, especially if you are linking to that tawdry tart’s web site. (I try to avoid going there, fearing I might vandalise my laptop screen, and I cant afford a new one)… 🙂

        • Nick says:

          Somebody on that thread challenges the claim of 117F in Melbourne on 26th October 1926, and rightly so. The nominated day was 99F according to the Melbourne data. There was a 104F day a week before…but 117? Crap.

          The story itself is a hardly essential reminder of how tough a heatwave in a drought is when you do not have any communications technology beyond watching for smoke, and no fire-fighting technology beyond wet sacks….

        • Nick says:

          On the other hand[wave]: The considered response from Canberra is none. No response.

          Daddy’s home and wants dinner, and some quiet. You kids don’t disturb him.

        • john byatt says:

          debunker i was putting some of the stuff that giddeon spruiks here and quite often this bulldust guy has a very similar twisted outlook,

          johnathon green
          Club of Rome and a few others in other threads

          was wanting to see if anyone else noticed the similarity,apparently not, maybe they are just all crazy

        • Debunker says:

          Well yes, there is a general similarity, but not enough to recognise the modus operandi of any particular troll. They are all the same, with their tendency to wander off topic and ramble on about nothing in particular, whilst getting their facts wrong, so no. I was not able to recognise a Gids type comment per se, there.

          Thanks for the clarification though.

        • john byatt says:

          through nova search

        • Rodger the Dodger says:

          “Nick says:
          November 4, 2013 at 11:28 pm
          Somebody on that thread challenges the claim of 117F in Melbourne on 26th October 1926”

          It’s how climate zombies roll. They don’t actually expect anyone to go to Trove and check it for themselves. We all know how much Gidiot will lie and misrepresent, so is it any surprise that other climate zombies do the same. It’s all the climate zombies have. The facts, science and reality is conspiring against them. Strawmen, misrepresentation, ad homs and bald faced lies. Typical fair of your average clueless climate zombie. Also, does anyone notice that all climate zombies are clones of each other. It’s always the same myths. No warming for 16 years, the climate has always changed, CO2 is a trace gas, CO2 is plant food, the MWP was warmer, it’s a hoax, the models are wrong. And then to finish it off it’s it’s more ad homs. Disgraceful.

  14. john byatt says:

    you claim to have a big penis but obviously no balls

    joseph gidiot “In the early 1800′s, it was possible to drive a horse and cart from Hobart to Launceston even though there were no roads, but instead just open grass land and open wooded areas due to the regular burning. Now these areas are considered old-growth forest which the Greens are determined to protect.

    You dodged and weaved about the accuracy of your claim, so perhaps you’d like to revisit it in light of your demands of others. So…

    Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are “old-growth”? Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are being targeted for protection by those “determined” Greens, whether “old-growth” or not

    when are you going to answer this?

    • Gregory T says:

      Well John , what does one expect, from someone who obviously subscribes to the Keith Windschuttle view of Tasmanian history.

    • Rodger the Dodger says:

      The reason why Gidiot won’t answer is because he is a complete and utter liar, or completely wilfully ignorant. This has now been proven countless times.

      Check out this map

      There is no old growth between Launceston and Hobart, it’s all cleared farmland.
      All the remaining old-growth is ON THER OTHER SIDE OF THE ISLAND!!!

      It’s all a complete fit up, designed to perpetuate his hatred of the Greens. Nothing more.

      Gidiot is just your typical bigoted, hateful and fearful extremist right winger. It is also why he is obsessively trolling here. He his just a worthless scumbag, devoid of any morals. He is a selfish racist, trying to bore the readership of this website into madness with the arse dribbles that he calls his thoughts.

        • john byatt says:

          no wonder you did not say anything


        • Rodger the Dodger says:

          Another Gidiot foot in mouth moment, proving himself wrong. Do you notice that the area from Launceston to Hobart is NOT included.

          Just piss off you freaking crackpot. You have nothing to contribute and you hate everyone here. You just troll and bore us to death.

        • J Giddeon says:

          Are we looking at the same map?

        • Rodger the Dodger says:

          You are freaking blind Gidiot, too much spittle on your screen eh. Why don’t you check where the old roads were from Launceston to Hobart, and you will see that area is all farmland.

          Just piss off. You are so dumb and blind that you cannot see.
          Why are you still trolling here with you inane and boring comments.

        • J Giddeon says:

          ” Why don’t you check where the old roads were”

          the point from the very beginning was that there were no roads at the time I was talking about. Right on top of things as usual I see.

        • Rodger the Dodger says:

          You are a dumb bastard. The first tracks, then became the first roads. Besides, you are going off topic again. The entire area where the first tracks were from Launceston to Hobart is ALL FARMLAND now. You have been proven as a liar again.

          Now piss off you nasty little troll.

        • Bernard J. says:

          J Giddeon.

          Perhaps you’re confused because you can’t see the roads on the map to which you linked. Compare it with this:


          The nearest forest to the Midlands Highway is about 15 km to the west, on the Tunbridge Tiers, and conveniently adjacent to the ‘A’ in the peach-coloured balloon on the Google map. Now, are you going to tell us that the 19th century trails went straight between Hobart and Launceston, and staggered up to to cross the Tiers en route?!

          You have no idea about the interior of Tasmania do you? the Midlands Highway follows the path it does – the same path that colonial travelers took, precisely because it avoids the steep mountain ranges to the west. This is why Campbell Town, Ross, and Oatlands are where they are.

          You’re a complete fool and an ignorant. Your mother must be so proud.

        • Bernard J. says:

          And before J Giddeon distorts my meaning, when I said “the nearest forest” I was referring to the forests indicated on the map to which he linked here:

        • Nick says:

          The narrow strip of reserved forest land somewhat between Launceston and Hobart is the easternmost end of the Great Western Tiers. It has been logged where not too step and is not the old growth forest that is being fought for. No routes cross it between the two cities, and in the 1800s all traffic moved to the east through the broad valleys feeding into the Esk.

        • Bernard J. says:


          As you no doubt know the forest around the Tiers area and further out holds some remarkable species. For the benefit of international reader, until a decade or so ago devils were common around there (ahhh, the smell of Sarcophilus and hessian) and those beautiful-but-bitey spotted-tailed quolls with skin as tough as shoe leather still get about, although their numbers are declining too.

          If the Greens are attempting to protect forests that are home to such species, then all power to them. The Flying Spaghetti Monster knows we’ve removed enough of their habitat already.

        • Nick says:

          Ah, yeah.. I see they want to extend the modest reserved area.

    • Debunker says:

      Also JG, how about addressing the so called ‘erroneous’ News Ltd article?

      One thing that it is blindingly obvious that we have run out of, is coherent and relevent answers from you!

  15. Gregory T says:

    You see, that’s where you fail in these comments. You assume that everyone is like you. You just “skim”, not really comprehending anything and then ducking out when the pressure is too much. Your much like Windschuttle, in the fact that he sees conspiracy in other historians, who go against his deluded view of history. Much like you who think climate scientists are all conspiring to destroy your deluded view of a self regulating planet.

    • john byatt says:

      it was bozo with the self regulating planet

      this one does not think that we will ever get to double CO2 (560) or run out of fossil fuel, you can figure out that one

      he has no understanding of the time limit to reduce emissions, believing that modern science, the same science he hates will solve the problem of non fossil fuel energy and it will be rolled out and taken up in a matter of weeks,

      the reason that he sounds absurd is because he is not being truthful about his reasons for rejecting the science

      • Gregory T says:

        I stand corrected.

        A brief quiz.

        Who Am I?

        I suffer from;

        Receptive aphasia: characterized by fluent but meaningless speech and severe impairment of the ability understand spoken or written words

      • J Giddeon says:

        “this one does not think that we will ever get to double CO2 (560) or run out of fossil fuel, you can figure out that one”

        Clearly these things are too hard for you to follow, so I’ll keep it simple.

        In the next 20-25yrs, on current trends, solar (and maybe wind) will be competitive with FF and will have valid storage. At that point FF use will plummet.

        I’ve posted several times (but its clearly not of interest here) details about new building techniques that, it is said, will make office/apartment buildings zero emission which in places like China may reduce emissions by 25- 35% over the next 30 yrs.

        there is new battery technology some call nano batteries which will allow manufacturers of hybrids to build batteries into car panels, reducing the weight by 30% with a similar increase in fuel efficency. Probably in vehicles by 2020.

        there is new hybrid technology that attaches batteries directly to wheels, reducing weight and reducing the price differential for hybrids by up to 70% while increasing fuel efficency by 50-100% in cities.

        Nuclear is becoming less of a bogey-man to the usual suspects.

        Thorium reactors maybe 20 yrs away.

        We won’t continue to use FF when we don’t need to. That’s why we won’t run out of it. When we start using its substitutes emissions will plummet.

        See simple when you think about it. Did I lose you along the way?

        • john byatt says:

          we do not have 20 to 25 years we have to start reducing emissions before 2020

          that is only seven years, and your moronic maybe wind, when you and your moronic mates do not even accept that it is already at a stage where it can replace FF

          if you retards just stop spreading absolute crap about syndromes.

          you are deluding yourself through fear, “just forget it and it will be ok, god is in charge”

        • Nick says:

          All good news in it own way, Gids. But forgetting how hard FF ‘asset’ holders are fighting to keep their market share. Better technology will be [as it has been] retarded by their incumbency and the politicians they have bought. And forgetting how hard you fight to reject the science, a fight which delays progress you seem to think desirable on other terms.

          Give the news to Campbell Newman, who is determined to open up the Galilee Basin by ‘incentivising the private sector’ -subsidies- because coal prices are soft. These people are determined to see that basin mined ‘in our best interests’…that determination rests on a watering down of environmental standards and a rejection of science that is hopelessly arrogant.

          I don’t think anyone here is unaware of how much better building standards can be: it’s been a very public struggle over the last two decades to get them to improve as much as they have. We already had the means to cut energy use in housing globally years ago, ditto in automobiles.

          You also gamble on natural sinks maintaining their vital current draw-down capacity. This is not a given.

        • zoot says:

          I heard McKibben on Late Night Live. He made the point that the carbon in the Galilee Basin will well and truly destroy us if it is released into the atmosphere.

    • J Giddeon says:

      I never talked of self-regulating planet. but its always easier to mock other’s views if you make them up as well.
      I never talked of climate scientists are all conspiring to destroy anything . But its always easier to mock other’s views if you make them up as well.
      “in the fact that he sees conspiracy in other historians, ” Well since you haven’t read his book you don’t know in fact what he sees do you? Not a conspiracy but serious errors (proven errors in fact) by people who were more activist than historian.

  16. Rodger the Dodger says:

    A good video by Michael Mann, where he argues that the IPCC report is too conservative.


    • john byatt says:

      the IPCC is always going to be a case where the most conservative or lowest projection will be the one that everyone can agree on

      lowest common denominator

  17. john byatt says:


    Accepting the science of climate change and its ramifications while opposing action out of political necessity? That would be bordering on outright evil, writes Jonathan Green.

    • Bernard J. says:

      Jonathan Green is one journalist who I have not encountered much before now. In the last few weeks though his name has surfaced several times, and it’s encouraging to think that we might have in him a journalist of integrity and who is actually willing to tell everyone that the emperor is not wearing clothes.

      We need more reporters and commentators of his high calibre.

    • Nick says:

      Excellent work on the vanity of politics: Howards elevation of the politics of the month to what is essentially truth.

  18. john byatt says:

    The Australian: THE Coalition yesterday abruptly cancelled scheduled climate-change briefings with business, lobby groups and diplomats from other nations, raising doubts about the position Australia would take to international talks starting in Poland next week

  19. john byatt says:

    online opinion

    Here is my list of denier’s strategies that I have spotted.

    Always refer to the climate “debate”, as though the science is still undecided.
    Plan the economy factoring out climate science, by appointing business advisors who deny global warming.
    Plant big coal investors on environment boards while denying any conflict of interest.
    Use coal investors and lobbyists to advise Government on coal exploration and to assess risks of Coal Seam Gas (CSG).
    Sack competent globally respected climate advisors and other climate regulators.
    Have no science portfolio
    Disparage or ignore world authoritative reports such as those by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
    Capture influence in the main stream media.
    Politicize the Public Service by sackings and resulting intimidation.
    Deny that you deny. “As I’ve often said [in the recent past] climate change is real & serious but…”
    Promote ineffective solutions over effective ones.
    Discredit environmentalists and experts, rather than confront the evidence presented.
    Infiltrate the media with links to vested interests.
    Assert that the economy is separate from the environment and denigrate the science and ignore the future.
    Promote a climate change denial primer in schools.
    Climate change is real but there is no need to be alarmed, its not all bad.
    Tell lies about the terrible economic consequences of a carbon price.
    Enter parliament to promote your own interests regarding mining.
    Promote fossil fuels as the basis of the economy.
    Call it a belief and religious leftist zealotry, not real science.
    Declare it’s too complicated for most people to understand although it is not.
    Sack the experts that were appointed to explain it to the public.
    Deflect attention by focusing cynically or absurdly on other social justice concerns such as refugees.
    Identify and scapegoat groups as the “real” threats to our way of life ,such as refugees and “bikie gangs”.
    Spread various myths that dispute climate change science.
    Develop and promote special terms of abuse such as warmists and alarmists .
    Flood the media with factually incorrect articles that discredit the climate science.
    Repeat easily stated and headline slogans, such as axe the tax, stop the boats.
    Saturate government with climate denier advisors.
    Create prisons (for asylum-seekers) on islands and Pacific nations impacted by climate change and threatened with inundation, through rising sea levels.
    Deny impact of climate change on extreme weather events.
    Expand Australian coal exports as fast as possible.
    Build infra structure to aid coal exports.
    Cut loans to funding to clean energy.
    Continue investing in fossil fueled power stations and infrastructure.
    Promote notorious climate deniers such as Lord Monkton.
    Disparage articles and reports by climate scientists.
    Speed up approval process for mining projects .
    Cut safeguards for the environment, by cutting green tape.
    Blame theGreens for bushfires .
    Blame environmentalists for floods.
    Fund political candidates who declare climate change denial and foster the interests of developers.
    Assert that warming is ‘natural’ everything changes and there is no problem.
    Dine sup party and accept funding from coal moguls.
    Cosy up to shock jocks and media science deniers.
    Have an inadequate emissions reduction target of 5 percent.
    Abolish (or try to repeal) the legislated price on carbon.
    Give greater media concentration to deniers than to the science.
    But the stand alone Piece de resistance is: elect a climate denying fossil fuel promoting Government, that is backed by vested interests.
    All of the above and more.
    Still to come: the fifty ways to combat climate change. Most will be obvious and implied by the denial list.

    • Rodger the Dodger says:

      Don’t mention Climate Change, focus instead on sport, celebrities and cooking shows,

      Sneak in anti-science memes when talking about science topics.

      Brush of the media who ask any questions regarding Climate Change.

      Appoint known climate change deniers to mining company boards.

      Continue to provide subsidies and tax breaks to fossil fuel industries.

      Abolish any mining tax or prevent any windfall profits tax.

      Reinforce and cement your ideology by only reading ideological blogs and books and nor even bother to read any science.

      Muzzle ministers and vet any statements.

      Cut funding to the CSIRO.

      Bombard climate scientists with FOI requests and frivolous lawsuits.

      Disguise NIPPC reports as IPCC reports.

      Disguise anti-science ‘think-tanks’ by naming them after famous scientists.

      Label those who accept climate science as suffering from a mental disorder.

      Use faux scientists that were involved in the promotion of the tobacco industry.

      Print anti-govenment stories and slogans about governments that promote positive action on climate change.

      Blame China and India.

      Each countries individual emissions are negligible, so why even bother.

      CO2 is the gas of life, and encourages plant growth.

      There has been no warming for XX years.

      It’s the sun, underwater volcanoes, cosmic rays, continental drift.

      The models are wrong and we don’t know what we don’t know.

      It was warmer during the MWP, RWP.

      There has always been climate change.

      It’s all natural variation.

      It’s a hoax.

      The scientists have made it up so they can recieve government grants.

      The IPCC is political and cannot be trusted.

      Flannery lives in a riverside home and said the dams will never fill.

      Troll any website that has people talking about climate change.

      The hockey stick is broken and is fraudulent.

      Making any changes will ruin the economy and make lamb roasts cost $100.

      It will keep the poor countries poor.

      Infra-red energy cannot penetrate water.

      CO2 is heavier than air.

      CO2 is just a trace gas.

      Volcanoes and nature produce far more CO2.

      Bushfires creates more CO2 than man.

      Climate science is pseduoscience.

      Consensus is not how science works.

      Mauna Loa is a volcano so the CO2 record is tainted.

      CO2 levels were higher in the past

      The earth is self regulating

      God put fossil fuels for our benefit and would not have put it there if it damaged the environment.

    • Nick says:

      Rupert will be pleased, what with his empty waffle about education in his Lowy lecture.

      The COALition have the stupid in spades. And the vindictive.

  20. Rodger the Dodger says:

    Has anyone seen the movie Idiocracy‎?


    It’s a mediocre movie, but every time I try and explain something to a denier, It’s like being in that movie.

    Joe : What *are* these electrolytes? Do you even know?
    Secretary of State: They’re… what they use to make Brawndo!
    Joe: But *why* do they use them to make Brawndo?
    Secretary of Defense: [raises hand after a pause] Because Brawndo’s got electrolytes.

  21. Rodger the Dodger says:

    “Super Typhoon Haiyan, the equivalent of a Category 5 hurricane, slammed into the Philippines after forcing thousands of people to evacuate.

    Haiyan had top winds of almost 315 kilometres per hour when it was about 489 miles (786 km) southeast of Manila, the US Navy’s Joint Typhoon Warning Centre said at 3am Manila time. Winds gusted to as high as 378 km/h, the Navy said.

    “If it maintains its strength, there has never been a storm this strong making landfall anywhere in the world,” said Jeff Masters, founder of Weather Underground in Ann Arbor, Michigan. “This is off the charts.””



    I think we all should pause for a moment and think of all those people who are set to lose their homes and livelihoods.

  22. john byatt says:

    unbelievable wave heights

    • john byatt says:

      The Manila-based regional head of the United Nations’ Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, David Carden, is hearing of widespread damage.

      “We’ve heard reports of storm surges as high as the second storey of houses,” he said.

  23. Gregory T says:

    Just watched MSN report about 60 seconds on typhoon Haiyan, and about twice that on the launch of Twitter on the NYSE, sad.

  24. john byatt says:

    “god will not let it happen”

    “god is punishing us through climate change”


    • john byatt says:

      they can go from there is no increase in extreme events to look increase in extreme events because we are naughty

      “A door has been opened and we have said, ‘You know, we embraced a wicked policy,’” Barton opined. “Okay, then I’ll take my hand of protection off your nation and whap, here comes storms like we’ve never seen before. And here comes floods like we’ve never seen before. And here comes the climate stuff that we can’t explain. All the hot times and all the cold times. Too much rain and not enough rain. And we’re flooding over here and we’ve got droughts over here.”

      • Gregory T says:

        Sometimes I think God woke up on the eighth day and realized he forgot to mention climate change. He then rolled over and went back to sleep and thought, “Oh well, I guess they’re screwed, f–k em if they can’t take a joke”.

  25. Last month: warmest temperature ever recorded for the Southern Hemisphere in the modern era.

    This month: Typhoon Haiyan, one of the strongest storms on record, bashes the Philippines.


  26. john byatt says:

    check out the graph, is this a computing problem?


  27. john byatt says:

    too funny


    that drawing is used at watts to depict neanderthals in, wait for it North america 10,000 years ago

  28. john byatt says:

    no wonder Hunt will not attend climate talks

    ” you are gonna do what? get rid of the carbon price, climate institute, science are you effin insane?

    hope no one notices,

    • john byatt says:

      wrong link, was to Hunt’s ” i am not going because i have urgent business getting rid of all Australia’s climate policies”

  29. Bernard J. says:

    The Tree put this out a few days back:


    It’s caught on around the traps, with rather less restrained but no less important emphasis on what it really means:



    Australia really must be an international laughing stock, with the rabidly regressive policies that the neo-fascist Liberal-National Coalition has introduced since gaining office in September. Especially so given the fact that the Australian environment minister Greg Hunt, who wrote an Honour’s thesis on the benefits of controlling pollution by taxing polluters, has taken the astonishingly bizarre step of not attending the UN discussions in Warsaw on addressing climate change because he wants to stay in the country and progress the LNP policy of removing any and all price on human-emitted carbon dioxide.

    Just before the election I said this:

    I’m curious – if Abbott is determined to ignore the advice of the best economists and the best scientists on the matter of climate change, and it materialises in a decade or two that his policies are responsible for discernible delay and consequent damage to Australian and other national economies and to global ecosystems, is he not liable under law for not exercising due diligence and duty of care in his capacity as the leader of the Liberal Party and likely of the country?

    In other words, if Abbott’s decision to ignore science leads to exacerbated damage to my childrens’ and grandchildrens’ world, can they seek redress from him or from his estate and/or the Liberal Party?

    After all, he can’t say that he wasn’t told, especially with the contents of AR5 already known. If he willfully ignores the best professional advice, he and the Coalition are surely culpable under law for the consequences of their actions.

    With reports such as Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability being leaked in the same week as Super Typhoon Haiyan kicking seven colours of snot out of the Philippines and soon Laos and Viet Nam, and the WG1 release of AR5 in September following on from so much other expert work and being accompanied by the October fires in NSW and Fitzroy Crossing breaking the Australian record for the hottest October mean, one wonders how the Coalition government can engage in its ecocidal and potentially genocidal policies without being absolutely and entirely culpable and legally liable for so acting.

  30. MikeH says:

    Please pass the following on to your friends.

    National Day of Climate Action, next Sunday 17th November.
    In every Australian capital city and 100s of regional towns.


  31. john byatt says:

    climate zombies

    google Climate tax, aid and fees off table as cabinet toughens stance

    the australian

    • john byatt says:

      the australian

      FEDERAL cabinet has ruled that Australia will not sign up to any new contributions, taxes or charges at this week’s global summit on climate change, in a significant toughening of its stance as it plans to move within days to repeal the carbon tax.

      Cabinet ministers have decided to reject any measures of “socialism masquerading as environmentalism” after meeting last week to consider a submission on the position the government would take to the Warsaw conference.

      A further document was produced after the meeting that outlines the government’s position.

      GRAPHIC: Parliament order of business

      The Australian has seen part of the document and it declares that, while Australia will remain “a good international citizen” and remains “committed to achieving the 5 per cent reduction” by 2020 of the 2000 levels of emissions, it will not sign up to any new agreement that involves spending money or levying taxes.

      This rules out Australia playing any role in a wealth transfer from rich countries to developing nations to pay them to decrease their carbon emissions.

      The decision hardens the nation’s approach to the UN’s negotiations amid a renewed push from less-developed countries this week for $100 billion a year in finance to deal with climate change.

      Cabinet decided that Australia would consider joining a new scheme after 2015, but only if all the major global economies did likewise.

      Senior ministers believe there is absolutely no chance of that happening.

      The Abbott government has explicitly decided that it will not agree to any payments or accept any liabilities as part of any carbon agreement.

      The government’s document also says that Australia “will not support any measures which are socialism masquerading as environmentalism”.

      The document’s commitment that the government “will review its commitment in 2015 in light of the science and international developments” deliberately allows a range of policy outcomes.

      In the unlikely event that all major economies move in a concerted way, Australia could join in. However, the language provides that if the science becomes more unclear, and if nations move away from their earlier enthusiasm for action, then Australia also could wind back its efforts.

      This explicitly does not mean winding back on the 5 per cent reduction target for 2020, but does mean that after 2020 things are less clear.

      The government’s document also says Australia’s efforts on greenhouse gases will be conditioned by “fiscal circumstances”.

      This does not mean the Coalition’s already announced financial commitments are in doubt, but indicates it is unlikely the government will spend substantial new sums of money, beyond what has already been announced, on reducing carbon outputs.

      Tony Abbott has signed off on the new stance as he assures households he will cut their cost of living by abolishing the carbon tax, with the repeal bill to go to parliament on Wednesday morning.

      The Prime Minister moved last night to intensify political pressure on Bill Shorten to back the repeal, telling voters in an online video message that the Coalition policy would cut their power bills.

      “You’ve already voted on the carbon tax but now it’s the parliament’s turn. This is my bill to reduce your bills,” Mr Abbott said in the video released last night.

      “Abolishing the carbon tax will reduce the average household’s cost of living by $550 a year.”

      But Labor and the Greens are set to stymie the repeal in the upper house, pushing for an inquiry to criticise Mr Abbott’s direct-action policy to spend $2.8 billion on carbon abatement schemes.

      “We would scrap the carbon tax, so long as there was real and effective policies to tackle climate change,” the Opposition Leader said yesterday. “But if the Liberals have their way, and they’ve got this silly policy of direct action, which is just paying big polluters to pollute – we’re not going to have a bar of that.”

      Coalition and Labor MPs fly to Canberra today for party meetings before the formal opening of the new parliament tomorrow, with carbon pricing expected to dominate debate in the first question time on Wednesday.

      Alongside the carbon tax repeal, the Abbott government is planning to introduce bills to increase the debt ceiling to $500bn, repeal the mining tax, establish a more powerful building industry watchdog and toughen penalties for corrupt union officials.

      Government sources cautioned that some bills might not be introduced this week, given the limited time to debate legislation after the ceremonial opening of parliament tomorrow.

      The timing of the Warsaw conference on climate change is difficult for the government. It has decided that neither Environment Minister Greg Hunt nor Foreign Minister Julie Bishop will attend.

      The Abbott government does not expect any significant progress to occur at the Poland meeting.

      Ms Bishop will be at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting while part of the conference is on, and then at the annual AUSMIN talks as the Warsaw conference draws to a conclusion.

      The government regards AUSMIN, the annual foreign and defence ministers’ meeting between Australia and the US, as vastly more important.

      Mr Hunt will be in parliament supervising the introduction of the legislation to repeal the carbon tax while the Warsaw conference is on. However, the government would most likely not have sent a minister in any circumstances as it does not believe the meeting will be of great significance.

      Mr Abbott has been strongly critical of agreements in which Australian funds are used to buy permits that are meant to fund cuts to greenhouse gas reductions in other countries – a key mechanism in the global talks.

      The Coalition based its criticism of Labor policy on official forecasts showing Australian emissions would rise over time and that the 5 per cent target was only reached by purchasing overseas permits at an eventual cost of $150bn a year in 2050.

      “This is by far the biggest wealth transfer from Australians to foreigners that’s ever been contemplated,” Mr Abbott said of purchasing offshore carbon permits.

      By formalising these concerns in official policy, federal cabinet is preparing to counter any move at the Warsaw talks to accelerate climate change financing deals meant to be worth $100bn a year.

      On a per-capita basis, Australia’s contribution to the $100bn in global climate change finance would be $2.4bn or more.

      The government believes it is appropriate to have the Australian delegation led by the Climate Change Ambassador, Justin Lee, who was appointed by Labor and has led numerous Australian delegations to climate change talks.

      • Nick says:

        Dumb-shit ideologues need to get their education BEFORE they pretend they are competent to govern. To describe the permit concept as crudely as a ‘wealth transfer’ to ‘foreigners’ is wreckless,wrong and destructive dog-whistling.

        • john byatt says:

          read someone this morning

          true terror is waking up and finding that your high school class mates are now running the country

      • Bernard J. says:

        Federal cabinet has ruled that Australia will not sign up to any new contributions, taxes or charges at this week’s global summit on climate change…

        So in other words the Coalition is not resisting the price on carbon because the rest of the world isn’t there yet, but simply because it doesn’t want to price carbon.

        In other words, the Coalition does not want to address carbon pollution by making polluters pay for their pollution.

        In other other words, the Coalition does not want the causers of the climate change to pay for their actions, even though their actions will probably destroy human society.

        In other other other words the Coalition was never intending to do anything about climate change beyond the tokenism required to win the 2013 election.

        In other other other other words the Coalition is happy to distort, deny, bury, misrepresent or otherwise ignore or dispute the harsh truth and reality of irrefutable science so that they can get on with the business of making their friends rich at the expense of the poor nations of the world, at the expense of about half of the biodiversity of the planet, at the expense of the existence of future generations of humans including their own, and at the likely expense of of the continued existence of humans as a species.

        This government is crazier than the worst cultists who commit mass suicide, because at least those cultists are taking their own lives and leaving the rest of the planet to theirs. This lot want to preserve their own indulgent lifestyles at the expense of the planet.

        How far this country has fallen in just two months – from one of the leaders of the 21st century to one of the worst equivalents of the fascist 20th century regimes.

        This is why our democracy is broken.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: